The only thing is, as several people on other media sites have pointed out, this guy cut the barrel off. For roughly $100 he can get another one, unscrew the cut one and screw the new one on and it is good to go again.

All you above and likely below with your negative comments about this guy. You are missing the point entirely (all except for #1You are just a fecking idiot) . He was making a point, a stand and a good one. I could be wrong but I would guess that firearms are quite high on the list of items stolen during breakings as there must be people unable to get a licence to buy a gun, so again this one is not going to end up in the wrong hands. He likely continued with his destroying of the weapon after the film finished.
If people copy his example in America then that can only be a good thing and every single gun out of circulation is as he rightly said one that isn't going to kill a child. Respect

This man hit on something important. In his lament he says ‘look at the pictures of those victims’. This of course refers to a photograph of the persons face – presumably smiling. Much like war via drone strikes and volunteer filled armies, the everyday civilian is insulated from the horrific carnage and damage that the bullets from an AR-15 to a human body. These deaths are sanitized and thus Americans don’t have to literally see and face the actual damage caused by the supposedly superseding love for the right to carry weapons of war over the right to live, work and study without the fear of being murdered.

I think it is time that the actual photos of the victims be shown (with families’ permission of course). Perhaps that shock may finally sway some minds much like those amazing kids and their campaign are trying to do in Florida. Some Americans love to invoke ‘rights’ but rarely are they faced with the actual real-life consequences. People get shot and life moves on. If you see up close what a bullet does and you have a whole new perspective. Just ask any soldier who has served in combat. Or doctor who has treated a gunshot wound. These are the experienced voices who are speaking out against Trump and the NRA and the asinine proposals to arm teachers and give bonuses to those teachers who carry weapons. Such insanity. The solution to Americans gun problem is more guns. Wow.

The state of Vermont has some of the loosest gun regulations in the US. There are no gun licenses. Everyone is just allowed to go buy guns.

The murder rate in Vermont is about the same as that in Finland and France.

The phrase "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." is not just some stupid NRA slogan. It's what the actual facts show. There is no correlation between the number of guns in a population and the number of homicides. The only thing having more guns around does is make it the tool of choice for homicide, because it's better at the task than most other tools. That's also why most suicides are undertaken using a gun.

That's not the say there aren't any homicides which wouldn't have taken place in the absence of a gun. But that's also true for other weapons - if that fire poker hadn't been there (or knife, frying pan, marble bust, etc.), she wouldn't have bashed his head in. It's also true that the presence of a firearm has prevented homicides (and other crimes).

What this video shows is abject simple-mindedness - an emotional reaction to a tragic event which nothing short of magically making guns disappear from the face of the earth would have prevented (he'd have had to get a sword instead, or perhaps decide to build a bomb).

Without exception, all of the proposals for new regulatory laws by anti-gun advocates would, if enacted, have made no difference whatsoever in the tragedy du jour they've chosen to exploit.

Respectfully, this statistic / claim is NOT the right question to ask.

>There is no correlation between the number of guns in a population and the number of homicides.

Where one does find meaningful statistical correlations is between the following:

1) The number of privately owned guns. (US is number 1, Yemen is number 2. Every 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlated with a roughly 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicides. When poverty, alcohol, urbanization etc all controlled for - privately owned guns is THE statistically significant factor)

2) This ties into the ability to access or ease of access to a gun

And 3) the licensing and regulation of firearms and gun deaths. (stricter controls result in fewer deaths)
The sheer number of guns in circulation in the US makes, as you state, guns the easy weapon of choice to use in crimes, and that makes guns 3 times more likely to be used in assaults and crimes that in any other industrialized nation.

The statics are very clear, America has too many guns floating around in private hands (101 guns per 100 residents, literally more guns than people now. Serbia is #2 is 58.21 per 100 residents. Access is too easy and regulation is patch work and poor and undermined by the NRA.

No other major 1st world industrialized nation suffers from this kind of violence. I can’t believe that this doesn’t concern you. You must have friends, family and loved ones you care about. Is the solution just to arm everyone and hope for the best? Is that your ideal country? Are you not horrified and concerned by gun violence? More guns cant be the answer – this is what got you into this mess in the first place.

#11 Thanny i feel like this is more "weather" related thing... where people closer to poles need to take care of each other because winter is coming and together we are stronger to survive it. This goes beyond god or family as you dont want to have resentful people among yourself.
As in ill show them respect and you burn down the house or just firewood.
As in people always pool together true winter, it makes their social values much higher.
Also people take care of each other and this lovers the motivation to be corrupted and their wealth is growing.

Also i bet there are more poor people on the south where is warmer and you dont need a house or heating to live and more poor people you have larger pool of people you have who might be prepared to do something criminal to get to another day.

No correlation you say.
How many people did toddlers killed with and/or without guns?

So this psycho it talking to the world and want to explain to other psychos, that they will die, if they do terror.
Seems counter intuitive, its hard to reason with mentally ill. Thats why we label them as mentally ill.
and if you forget who is saying these words and in what context it is almost like.
We will kill anyone who wants to learn!

In 1974, Israel endured the Ma’alot Massacre in which “Palestinian” terrorists took 115 people hostage at Netiv Meir Elementary School. Twenty-two children and three others were killed and 68 injured. Israel now requires schools with 100 or more students to have a guard posted. The civilian police force handles the entire security system of all schools from kindergarten through college. The Ministry of Education funds shelters and fences, reinforces school buses, and hires and trains guards.
Guards don’t just stand around. They check everyone entering, and engage threats.
And yeah, they’ve got guns.The lawful purposes for carrying guns are very clear: protect school personnel and students, create a sense of security, deter the ill-intentioned, and provide self-defense.
Common sense. Except to the illogical dullards who claim that “adding guns to schools won’t fix anything” and are fixated on the NRA and the ridiculous notions that gun laws magically stop criminals and crazy people from obtaining one of the 300 million guns in our country.
Wise-up America.

#17. sux2bu. I appreciate your candour in your response. I hope you will afford me the same respect in my response.

The situation that you have described below in Israel, fences, armed guards, checking for weapons, always on edge because of a potential threat – is that really any way to live in a modern society? Is that the kind of society that you want to live in? Raise a child in? Constantly in fear and always expecting an attack or at least the need to be prepared to defend oneself?

With all due respect this seems to be what you are proposing can be or should be is the new ‘normal’ in America. Is this really your solution??

You are basically saying ‘We have to many guns and the right to own them shall not be infringed ergo the only solution is a quasi-militarized society with more aggressive defensive measures’

That is the honestly the only and best solution for you?

Doesn’t this strike you as horrifyingly dystopian and stressful and depressing?

Life in Israel is NOT idyllic. The measures you describe come with an incredible financial and psychological cost.

The problem is the % of guns in private hands and a lack of substantive and uniform regulatory oversight. This is just a fact borne out by statistics. I think that people should have a right to own a weapon but as part of membership in a civilized society ownership needs to come with more responsibility and regulation. We have guns in my country and far far fewer gun crimes because we have common sense gun ownership and regulations.

There are literally more guns in America than people now. When is enough enough because what you have right now is clearly not working and adding more guns to the mix isn’t going to solve anything.

#18 No that is not the way I would like to see school security handled and in the US , I was just describing one country's solution. That solution is not needed here since we do not have a terrorist organization that hates us residing on the other side of our border. All we should need is either a few qualified and trained teachers or security personel or use off-duty police officers to deter the cowards who do these mass shootings. Those cowards pick gun-free soft targets where they know nobody is going to shoot back at them , so the possibility of being confronted by an armed security officer would make them re-think their plan. With over 300 million guns in the US there is no way to keep criminals from somehow finding a weapon to use , so making their targets less desirable to attack seems a step in the right direction.

#19. sux2bu ‘All we should need is either a few qualified and trained teachers or security personel or use off-duty police officers to deter the cowards who do these mass shootings. Those cowards pick gun-free soft targets where they know nobody is going to shoot back at them , so the possibility of being confronted by an armed security officer would make them re-think their plan.

Again, respectfully, this type of approach is uniformly rejected by law enforcement and teachers. And almost anyone who has served in the military. The good guy with a gun scenario is a fantasy, these situations are chaotic and even the best trained personnel (like special forces) must train daily to remain in peak condition with respect to reflexes, vision, physiological changes due to adrenalin etc etc. No one with any actual experience thinks this is a good idea.

In fact, we just had the perfect case study of your proposal in FL! A good guy, a trained sheriff, was AT the school as a guard, so someone as you suggest who ‘could shoot back’ and he failed to A) deter the kid despite the real possibility of being confronted and b) once the attack was underway he made the decision not to go in and try and engage the kid – perhaps because the kid had an assault rifle and didn’t fear dying. Your scenario was just tested and it failed miserably.

The presence of a trained and armed police officer did not deter the attack nor did the officer end it once it was underway. Now you may fault the officer for not Rambo-ing his way into a mano a mano gun fight but I suspect his training called for radioing in for support, surveiling the gun man to report the location to arriving specially trained and armed and protected forces, and NOT engaging lest he cause even more civilian casualties.

Please don’t say this was a one off coward police officer. He wasn’t paid to wade into a hail of gunfire. The deterrence effect DID NOT WORK.

Again – the American media is full of combat vets who are now teachers who think arming teachers is a horrible idea. And they should know.

Your proposal is in effect more guns and that is really just more of the same. Why on earth would you expect any different results? If we just had more guns… they maybe a different outcome. Really??

#21 Well my opinion for what it's worth is that due to the out of control gun situation in America and the continuous almost weekly death count of children in American schools, having armed guards at every school is the only possible solution to the problem.

Imagine living in a country where you send your children to school with the knowledge that one child with a mental health problem and access to automatic weapons can decide any day of the week to flip out, enter the school and murder your child along with most of his or her class mates and teachers with nothing in place to stop him or her (haven't had a girl shooter for a while). This is absolutely crazy and the gun uses should be made to pay a heavy tax like is paid on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol (gas) diesel to fund the guards, it should be paid on Ammunition as well as the guns themselves and an exceptional tax should be levied on the legal automatic weapons to make them less attractive. Unless America wakes up and starts to take responsibility for it's children this will never end. Giving teachers guns is ridiculous, they are teachers not armed guards.

This does not happen anywhere else on the entire planet. AMERICA WAKE UP. Your fecking stupid amendments, right to bear arms are out of date!!!! It's now just become an amendment that is killing your children, because some Tossers want to play cowboys and Indians still and don't want their toys taking away.

well tbh USA could pull its army back and clean the place up. Before telling others how to live their lives.
Saying that you cant find 300 mil fire arms is pathetic, if nothing else they could at least try.

2nd amendment is nothing else but approval of weapon trade and letting it unregulated is bound to have more and more unregulated guns out there.

Gun control to any meaningful extent won't happen, ever, so we have to deal with the reality. The reality is, in America, guns are here and likely will be forever. Like others have said, we have more guns than we do people. Our country was founded on different principles and ideology than most others, and I think that's a good thing. Our forefathers in general were brilliant with the system they set up.

The problem is both sides see things differently, and both sides are correct. I'm generalizing here, but basically the Left thinks guns are dangerous and they're right. The Right sees guns as necessary for their safety or for sport, and they're right. So now what? Nothing. Ever. Both sides will vote based on their fears. Some are founded and some are not, but that doesn't matter. Fear beats reason every time.

So, to #8's point, you have to focus on the people. How many times do we have to go down this road where these pukes were on our radar, and NOTHING was done by the F-sticks that are in charge of this stuff.? The FBI, the local police, everybody. Anybody who did nothing is ever named or shamed for being lazy or incompetent. They just go along doing the same thing and eventually get to live off me in their retirement. F that. Get off the porn on your work computer and do your F-ing job! Here in Los Angeles just the other day, the officials did their job and may or may not have thwarted a major operation, but they took action and found some really bad stuff going on with the 2 brothers.

It's really sad that the taboo of mowing down school children has been crossed. I'll never understand how you get-off gunning down helpless children. It's sick. Really sick.

#20 Allowing selected teachers and other school personnel to carry concealed weapons is already happening and has been for a number of years. Even liberal California is getting with it in some areas. It is the only thing that can be accomplished quickly to alleviate the problem.
#22 The army cannot be used to confiscate firearms from the civilian population do to constitutional restraints.

The question isn't whether or not homicides are committed more often with guns than with other weapons, in the presence of ample guns. The question is whether more homicides are committed due to the presence of guns. One questions is about how effective guns are are killing people, which has an obvious answer. The other is about whether or not having guns makes people kill other people more often, which doesn't have an a priori obvious answer. The actual answer, however, is that it doesn't, except in the way indicated in my comment - the lack of a weapon at hand will prevent a spontaneous homicide. The absence of a gun will not prevent any premeditated homicide.

So your problem is that you're failing to distinguish between homicides committed with guns and homicides caused by guns. It's actually quite dishonest to act as if they are the same thing.

Furthermore, the United States is a large nation. The homicide rate varies considerably from one location to another. It's worst in poor neighborhoods of large cities, inhabited mostly by blacks, who are more than half of all perpetrators as well as more than half of all victims, despite being only about 13% of the population total. Take those homicides out of the stats, and the US is middle-of-the-road in terms of homicide rate (there are other hotspots that, if remediated, would reduce the rate even further). So the bulk of what we have is a black on black violence problem, not a gun problem. Solving that problem is no simple matter, as there are many factors that contribute to its existence (inherent racial characteristics aren't among them, despite what alt-right idiots claim). What's clear, however, is that no amount of gun regulation is part of the solution.

Lastly, armed citizens is historically important in the United States. The first thing the British did to trigger active conflict in the Revolutionary War was go after the guns - trying to prevent the citizens from taking up arms. Many of the fighting forces during the war were private militias, too. And it was as recently as the 1940's that private citizens had to take up arms to fight government corruption, when a sheriff stole the ballot boxes during an election to avoid losing (the private citizens, after a gun battle, secured the true election results, and got rid of the corrupt sheriff). It may sound like crazy talk to some, in this day and age, to suggest that guns are for the prevention of tyrannical government, but it's as true as it ever was.

Once again and with all due respect you are once again WRONG. Please allow me to explain.

You claimed, after showing comparative population sizes? (Vermont & Finland and then France) and gun legislation regulations (limited, strict and strict) that ‘there is no correlation between the number of guns in a population and the number of homicides’. And I stated, and an abundance of literature shows that this is simply the WRONG STATISTIC (i.e. question) and while you may choose to cite it because supports your argument it makes for a disingenuous argument. You are citing the statistic that best supports your case, not the one that has been shown to hold a high degree of actual statistical SIGNIFICANCE via repeated studies.

You are choosing the convenient statistic and not the valid one. You are choosing a negative correlation to support your argument but I have proper studies and research showing both positive correlation and causation. And that is - there is a clear and proven correlation between the number of weapons in private hands and gun violence. #number of guns in private hands, loose to zero registration regulations = ease of access = equals an unparalleled murder rate via guns in the modern world.

The measure of the number of guns in a population and the number of homicides is both inaccurate and misleading it is far too broad – by design. It doesn’t account for a large number of confounds.

It is a proven fact however that due the amount of weapons in private hands in the US a gun is 3 times MORE likely to be used in a homicide. That is a just fact that you as an American must deal with on a daily basis.

As for your follow up question ‘whether more homicides are committed due to the presence of guns’ is also broad and misleading. More guns IN PRIVATE HANDS (and combined with loose regulation) , note the important conditions, does lead to more homicides in America being committed with guns. Homicides will happen using a variety of means but as you said the gun is quite effective thus making it the tool of choice and given the lethality and ability to harm multiple people quickly the US leads 1st world in homicides and multiple homicides via gun.

Then you ponder ‘whether or not having guns makes people kill other people more often, which doesn't have an a priori obvious answer’

Again so broad as to be meaningless. Your intention is clear – it is to undermine the role, use and causality of a gun in violence by surrounding it potential variables that could never be clearly addressed thus, in your eyes, reducing the culpability of the number of guns in private hands and the clear incontrovertible link to gun violence.

Case and point ‘The absence of a gun will not prevent any premeditated homicide’

No one has ever made such a claim but the contra, as in, ‘the PRESENCE of a gun has been shown to statistically link with the commission of homicides’ has in fact been proven.

Lastly, excluding African Americans as you suggest from violence statistics to try and improve your numbers and thus argument is really distasteful. The clear inference is ‘if it wasn’t for those violence prone blacks white America wouldn’t look so bad in terms of numbers’. African Americans are Americans as much as you are and violence within American communities is an American problem. To dismiss and try and isolate that as cultural or ethic group specific and not a result of American culture, history, politics and economics is again – disgraceful.

#27 "The question is whether more homicides are committed due to the presence of guns."
Are you saying this killing would be as effective with any kind of tool?
Dont you think he would need to use lots of energy to run,stab and probably fight people.
How many times did you try to stab someone while he was running away?
Dont you think he would need to drive a car really good to run over people in school?

"So your problem is that you're failing to distinguish between homicides committed with guns and homicides caused by guns."
intentional and unintentional discharge of fire arm?
This is not the part when we decide about the punishment for a person that killed someone,
This is not the part where we give everyone the gun, you already have the guns and you are proving you cant handle them.

"Take those homicides out of the stats,"
You are funny! You dont even want to hide the fact that, stats are there just to be manipulated to y/our advantage.
So what you are saying is that racial inequality is real at least you admitted to one thing.

Is it so hard to understand that people who are poor have less to live for and therefor their lives can be on edge of doing something that might end with death and some decide to took others with them.
We dont need to look far to find a perfect tool for the job - gun. You know, you can be dumb as citizen of US and still you are smart enough to pick up the gun, not car or knife.

And lastly private militias so it was corporate takeover and they still hold reins with gun lobby making sure US citizens stay scared for their life and frankly dont have time to think and relax. Instead, it is somehow better - here take our legal drugs and work hard. We dont need you after 60 anyway.

In 1940 while rest of the world was in war, US were at home shooting each other?
No wonder you were last in the game you love to play - war, US pushed on to flatten part of Korea.

Social values failed in US, because people knew, white people have the power and money and they dont like to share it even between them. So dark skin people were kicked out of this club since family, not community. Private vs public.
Private is what country permits you to have. So it can be your right to have fire arm, but it can demand from you a lot more than just drivers license and enough money or something a bit more drastic.
While in reality person who wants a gun at age 18 could be taken classes about guns with guns under control for years before and even at 18 you get a low cal pistol. at 21 after extensive training or in army police you can upgrade this license to carry to something with more punch as to say.

guns are for the prevention of tyrannical government,
When your president says ill pray for you, doesnt this means he is a tyrannical clearly he is the last one to pray and 1st to act.

I'm from Belgium, living in Brussels.
Since the terrorist attacks in 2016, we have military presence in our everyday life, in our cities, all around.
I'm still wondering to what extent military presence is effective against random, ready-to-die terrorists.
But I can confirm our everyday life is significantly worse due to the presence of real weapons, near you, handled by stressed military people. This cannot be permanent solution, nor a symbol of a successful and happy society.